) ) ) ) ) ) KEPLER S COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION ON THE LICENSING FRAMEWORK

Transcription

1 Attn: Director General Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 6 th Floor, 235 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H5 In the Matter of Consultation on the Licensing Framework for Non- Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) Systems and Clarification of Application Procedures for All Satellite Licence Applications ) ) ) ) ) ) Notice Reference No. SMSE KEPLER S COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION ON THE LICENSING FRAMEWORK Kepler Communications Inc. (Kepler) 1 is pleased to submit its comments in response to ISED s Consultation 2 which seeks comment on proposed changes to the regulations surrounding the use of large non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) systems. ISED should note that Kepler has filed comments in the FCC s Notice of Proposed Rule Making 3 (NPR) and has aligned its position here within to those provided to the FCC. Itemized below, in line with the structure laid out by ISED, are Kepler s recommendations, comments and concerns. A. Limit on the number of licences per band 1. While the introduction of a limit on the number of licenses issued to incumbents is an understandable proposition, especially given the expected increase in applicants such a policy is likely to have a detrimental effect on the Canadian Public. Historical Canadian rulings have 1 The Kepler System is an innovative new paradigm for satellite communications. It leverages nearly 16 years of ongoing development towards the CubeSat standard. Using this standard in combination with a novel, proprietary, Software Defined Radio ( SDR ) and electronically steerable antenna array, the Kepler System will deliver cost effective real-time connectivity for the billions of devices that gather the world s information. The complete system will be in operation by 2022 with the first two spacecraft already manifested for launch in Providing low-cost real-time connectivity through the Kepler System will be a key enabler to realizing the true economic potential of the data gathered by devices on the ground and satellites deployed in space 2 See Canada Gazette Part I, Vol. 151, Consultation on the Licensing Framework for Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) Systems and Clarification of Application Procedures for All Satellite Licence Applications, Notice No. SMSE (Mar. 2, 2017) 3 See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, IB Docket No (Dec. 15, 2016) 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 1 of 13

2 led to Canada having one of the most expensive and least competitive industries for terrestrial data networks, as noted in a 2015 CRTC-commissioned report 4. Kepler believes it would be unwise for ISED to limit the number of licenses available and orientate the space economy in a comparable direction to that seen in the terrestrial market. This comment is made with the understanding that the limitation of licenses would likely favour Kepler s position within Canada. Such a limitation is likely to result in the formation of an oligopoly if not a monopoly, with the largest player buying up the competition to be the sole license holder. Rather than place a limitation on the number of licenses, ISED should introduce a framework that encourages the implementation of novel technologies to facilitate coordination and spectrum sharing. Perhaps a solution to the anticipated onrush of applicants would be to limit systems that do not present the immediate ability to coordinate with future systems. 2. Of further note, ISED has had a moratorium in place for over six months and by the time it is lifted, a full year is likely to have passed. Given the sheer number of applicants that ISED can expect once this moratorium lifts, there would have to be a well-structured framework in place for selecting and prioritizing those that are deemed worthy of a license. Lack of such structure once the moratorium is lifted would result in a frenzy and is likely to be subject to criticism. 3. Furthermore, if ISED introduces a limit which is distributed to capacity and subsequently a license is returned or revoked, does it intend to maintain priority from the initial filing rounds? From a first come first serve basis this would make sense. However, realistically this would be impractical. 4. How would ISED judge the merit of new applications vs those that were already in the pipeline should it chose to maintain existing applications? If it chooses to not maintain existing applications and incumbents that filed previously fail to be informed of the newly available license, then such a system could easily bias new entrants vs established. ISED must also consider that those systems having already attempted to enter the market but failed to secure a license are quite likely to be more established than those filing new applications. 5. In summary, Kepler strongly disagrees with limiting the number of licenses ISED issues in specific bands unless it intends to do so only for systems employing dated technology that do not facilitate simplified spectrum sharing. Ultimately, limiting systems that propose to use novel technology would result in a closed market, reducing competition and stagnating development. Kepler s proposal is in line with ISED s concern in regards to the burden of managing coordination. 4 See Price Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Internet Services in Canada and with Foreign Jurisdictions, (Mar. 30, 2015) 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 2 of 13

3 B. Canadian Direction and Control 6. In principle, Kepler does not have any objections to this requirement given its position as a Canadian licensed system. What must be noted is that satellites have the capability of operating TT&C over their data links, which would render the requirement for a TT&C station fairly moot. In existing and current satellite systems, the non-directional TT&C band/antenna would more typically be used to stabilize a satellite that has a directional data antenna. Once the satellite has established a stable orbit, the omni-directional TT&C antenna is no longer required to operate the satellite unless in the event of a radio failure. The initial stabilisation of the satellite after ejection from its launch vehicle can be offloaded to third parties that may or may not be overseas and similarly may have hardware outside Canada. In such an instance, would ISED require third parties to operate hardware located within Canada and would this still hold true if the operator had their own facility in their locality? 7. Of further note, nano-satellites often don t have the capability to adjust orbits due to the lack of propulsion and instead rely on drag to alter their course over a relatively prolonged period of time. If it is ISED s intention to ensure that TT&C stations are in place on Canadian territory to ensure maneuverability, then such a regulation should be applied to satellites that have such a capability. If it is ISED s intent to ensure that an operator can cease emissions, then such a requirement would be relatively moot given the nominal 10 minute window for communication to take place ISED s proposal is somewhat unclear, in whether it is looking to require operators to own and run their facility in Canada or whether they would still be allowed to lease capacity provided the physical hardware being leased was located within Canada? 9. The amendment to milestones in regard to planned locations, construction and operational timelines seem fitting and are welcomed. While the presentation of a planned location may provide insight and the ability for ISED to forewarn of potential pitfalls and coordination issues, it is of very little value otherwise. 10. While Kepler intends to be licenced in Canada, it is unclear whether the same command and control requirements would extend to foreign controlled systems. Again, depending on the type of system, Kepler believes such a regulation on foreign systems could cause more damage than benefit by deterring systems where such rules do not make sense. 5 For clarity 10 minutes is ample time to signal a satellite to cease emissions. The point being conveyed is that if immediate termination of a signal is required outside of Canadian boarders, then this requirement does not solve any underlying international issue. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 3 of 13

4 11. In summary, Kepler has no objections to the proposals to amend the Canadian direction and control requirements, nor station milestones. It should be observed that the reasoning behind maintaining TT&C hardware within Canada is not abundantly clear and may not provide the benefit that ISED truly seeks by implementing said requirement. Perhaps this requirement should be limited to constellations above a certain size, eg a large NGSO as defined by ISED in item 38 and those primarily licensed in Canada. C. Canadian Coverage 12. ISED s proposal for 24/7 coverage in Canada appears to be misguided by the notion that all FSS services would provide a real-time, or what is known as a bent-pipe 6, architecture. Kepler s system is a prime example of how this is not true. Over the next years Kepler will be rolling out its store and forward system, which does not operate on the principle of bent-pipe architecture. The proposition that a store and forward service provide 24 hour coverage should not be imposed on a system that has no intention of providing a real-time service. Such a regulation would not only block the issuance of a license, it would effectively stall an economy that is not reliant on real-time data and can not afford to pay the additional cost associated with using such a network 7. ISED must recognize that a store and forward service could operate with as little as one satellite, gathering data globally and handing it off once every X cycles where X would represent an arbitrary timeframe that could potentially be on the order of days. The cost of such a system is inherently lower than a bent-pipe architecture and serves a very different market segment. 13. For a system that is licensed to provide real-time 24/7 services outside of Canada Kepler agrees with ISED that the system must be incentivised to provide the same service within Canada. The geographic location of Canada simplifies coordination within Ku and Ka given its distance from the GEO belt and as such, one would expect systems offering services closer to the GEO belt to be capable of doing the same within Canada. 14. As a cautionary note: ISED should recognize that a given system may not be capable of operating 24/7 on a global basis power restrictions are an example of why a system may not be capable of doing so. In setting up a requirement for operators to provide 24/7 access within Canada, ISED may invoke precedent with other administrations. As an example of where this could potentially cause conflict, a Canadian system may be designed such that it has enough power to provide 24/7 real-time access over Canada with excess capacity being sold into other administrations such as the US. If the US were to follow suit with a regulation similar to that 6 May also be achieved through a bent pipe architecture. 7 Prime examples of such architectures would be LoRa and SigFox. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 4 of 13

5 being proposed by ISED, it would exclude the Canadian system from operating in the US and effectively export its service. On the flip side of this, ISED could inadvertently obstruct rural bent-pipe connectivity deployment. Operators may be capable of providing excess capacity in northern/rural regions of Canada however, with the requirement being proposed they may never do so as the operator may not have the capacity to serve the entire market. 15. Given the relative proximity of the US and the tendency for FCC and ISED regulations to follow suit from one another, Kepler suggest that ISED follow the outcome of the FCC NPR. At present, the FCC is looking to abolish the requirement for 24/7 coverage of the US and Kepler has publicly supported this stance. Kepler noted in its comments in the NPR that where a system is incapable of providing service and a market exists, other operators would likely apply for the spectrum to deploy services. 16. ISED s proposal to mandate that a minimum of two gateways be required within Canada regardless of the size or purpose of a NGSO constellation would appear to be somewhat of a catchall, rather than targeted to appropriate systems. How would ISED differentiate or license a system that intends to use ISL but does not do so in its initial deployment? Would this only apply to a large NGSO or does it have alternate limits? As above, this requirement appears to relate to bent-pipe architectures rather than the industry as a whole. 17. Requiring a second gateway to be built as a milestone prior to initial satellite launches would only make sense where the entire number of satellites being deployed in the initial launch is large enough to justify the capital expenditure. Rather, if ISED choses to maintain said requirement, it should adopt a phased approach wherein the second gateway would need to be commissioned as a function of the number of satellites deployed. 18. ISED has not provided reasoning for requiring ISL capable constellations to have a gateway located in Canada? While Kepler does not have any concerns with this requirement, there does not appear to be any reason to mandate it. 19. Kepler strongly disagrees with the proposal to only consider waivers for established operators. Such a policy would inherently lead to an undue burden on new entrants while giving an advantage to existing operators. In effect, this policy could lead to incumbents operating under the umbrella of larger, more established operators who would control the market. 20. In summary, Kepler believes that the proposals made under the Canadian Coverage segment do not adequately target relevant systems and would likely lead to a reduction in competition. Where a system choses to not operate over Canada, there would be no triggering of inline 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 5 of 13

6 events and other systems could use the available spectrum 8. While the inclusion of a gateway in the milestones makes sense on several fronts, mandating that the number to be deployed and they be in Canada, have not been given adequate supporting documentation. ISED s proposal to further pedestal existing operators by giving them exclusive consideration for waivers is strongly opposed. D. LEO Capacity 21. The following comments predominantly relate to LEO systems. 22. ISED has proposed to restrict the capacity of satellites over Canadian space to use within Canadian boarders. From a LEO system without Inter Satellite (IS) links, this appears to makes perfect sense. A satellite who s beams only cover Canadian soil would not be able to service areas outside of Canada. Capacity being reserved vis-à-vis territory covered would also make sense while a satellite transfers over boarders. Note that the application of such a rule would likely only make sense for bent-pipe architectures. 23. From the perspective of a store and forward service, the proposed regulation would not conform to be meaningful. Capacity would be a function of power, storage and periods between downlinking. A satellite could potentially pass over Canada with its storage already at capacity and thus not be able to pick up any further information. In this instance, reservation would make sense if it accounted for the number of satellites in a system and the percentage of time the entire system spends over Canada vs other administrations that the system operates in. The regulation could read: For a store and forward system, or one in which global real-time coverage is not provided the system must reserve capacity for Canadian use that is equal to the proportion of time the constellation 9 covers Canadian territory vis-à-vis other administrations the constellation is operating in, over a period of seven days With regards to capacity reservation for satellites having IS links, ISED must differentiate between the satellite being used for downlinking data from the constellation and those satellites receiving data and forwarding it through the constellation. The satellite(s) downlinking data can not be restricted to servicing data that has originated in Canada. Kepler does not believe it is ISED s intent to impose such a limitation and force operators to build gateways outside Canada for downlinking non Canadian data. 8 In the event that an operator choses to not radiate over given areas and allow other incumbents to use the spectrum, ISED would be required to protect new incumbents from the original operator returning later to claim stake on the geographic use of said spectrum. 9 Constellation could also be reduced to satellite level resolution. Ie: the percent of time a satellite spends over Canadian territory vs other administrations is operates over. 10 The time period is necessary to average out system use, accommodating for capacity, power, etc. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 6 of 13

7 25. How does ISED propose to regulate IS links between satellites over Canadian territory and other satellites outside Canadian territory 11? If a satellite situated over Canada is capable of both terrestrial and IS data gathering, would that satellite have to dedicate 100% of its capacity to terrestrial based applications? Presumably this is not ISED s intention. 26. While ISED has used the term reserve Kepler would like to clarify its interpretation vs the word allocate. In this instance, reserved capacity could be used for non-canadian based applications provided there are no customers seeking to use the capacity. If non-canadian customers are capable of using the capacity, the operator could then allocate the reserved capacity until Canadian based clients wish to use it. We trust this is the intent that ISED has with regards to the regulation, as the reservation without ability to allocate it when there is no Canadian demand would result in wasted spectrum In summary, Kepler questions whether such a restriction is actually necessary or conducive to what ISED is trying to achieve, namely ensuring Canadians receive equitable access to spectrum allocations for international NGSO. In LEO, there is likely a fair allocation of time in which any given satellite can only communicate with ground stations in Canada. Would this time suffice to ensure Canadians receive adequate bandwidth? While Kepler has no underlying concern with what it believes ISED is trying to achieve with these adjustments to the regulations, they require further clarification and substantiation for the varying types of system architectures. ISED must also consider how such a regulation would create artificial supply/demand and the effect that it would have on the market. E. Removal of coexistence as an assessment criterion 28. Kepler believes that coordination should be the effective mechanism for triggering operators to validate that coexistence is possible. Similarly to the US, ISED should require operators to post ephemeris data that is publicly accessible and that would facilitate coordination. While the burden is on the incumbents to approach existing operators, Kepler does not believe it should be a condition of license. Effective methods to seek assistance from both ISED and the ITU are available (and discussed here within) when operators can not come to an agreement with regards to coexistence. 29. Despite not considering coexistence before issuing a license, ISED should require incumbent operators to present how they intend to operate without causing harmful interference to other 11 The question applies to both satellites of the same system and IS links between systems of different operators. 12 Kepler understands that there may be motivation for an operator to not seek Canadian clients as such, ISED should have a portal for Canadian businesses seeking access to space borne networks. This portal should keep track of the % Canadian utilization and reserve capacity. Operators should be required to update this information every 3 months. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 7 of 13

8 systems before launch. Such a requirement could be added into the general milestones. Effectively, this would result in system operators providing notice to ISED at the last stage of development once the system is well defined rather than speculating at the onset for a licensure. 30. Ultimately, if existing operators believe that an incumbent system could cause harm to their own system they should file coordination requests through ISED to the ITU. 31. In summary Kepler supports ISED s proposal to remove coexistence as an assessment criteria. F. Implementation milestones 32. While Kepler welcomes the leniency that ISED is proposing in the deployment timeline for NGSO systems, a third of the system deployed within 6 years is relatively low. Rather than differentiate itself from the US, Kepler proposes that ISED align itself to follow suit. At current, the FCC NPR suggest 75% deployment in six years with all deployed after 9 years. 33. ISED has noted that the 30% criterion is at its discretion, suggesting that this is a hard limit. Perhaps the introduction of a soft limit would be conducive to further clarifying the proposal. ISED could set the soft limit at 75% with the hard limit remaining at 30%. As such, any system that has deployed over 75% within 6 years will automatically maintain its license pending successful deployment of the entire constellation at year 9, while anything between 30% and 75% would be at ISED s discretion. 34. While an engineering estimate is possible with regards to the assumed size a constellation will become, ISED should provide guidance on how applicants define their system. The majority of operators are likely to specify a larger system than actually required and subsequently reduce their numbers. On the other hand, a store and forward system may file for a single satellite and continue increasing this number relative to the demand observed for service. It may be beneficial to allow license operators to mandate the bear minimum number of satellites required for operation and a subsequent buffer zone to allow an increase should it be required. Such a buffer could be a function of the original number of satellites for which a license was filed, allowing for relative discrepancies In summary, Kepler believes ISED should introduce a soft limit to its proposal and ensure there is adequate leniency on the deployment schedule without uncertainty regarding an operator s ability to maintain a license. 13 Purely as an example, the function could be buffer = 1 + S * P e S * M ; Where S is the proposed number of satellites, P the percentage buffer allowed and M is a scaling factor to allow leniency on smaller constellations. As a worked example if 19% leniency was allowed and a scaling factor of 0.05 applied, 4 satellites would need to be in the proposal to allow for an additional buffer of 1 satellites (rounded down). 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 8 of 13

9 G. Large NGSO Definition 36. When looking at the recent constellations that have been proposed and filed with the ITU, ISED s proposal of defining a large constellation as one with 30 satellites is relatively insignificant. In context, it would be at least an order of magnitude less than the majority of large constellations being proposed. 37. This document has suggested the application of the term Large NGSO to additional sections not originally assigned by ISED. The difficulty in defining a large NGSO lies in the fact that there are differing natures of systems. A store and forward system with a given number of satellites likely wouldn t require the same number of gateways as a bent-pipe constellation to function effectively. As noted previously, the application of the term large NGSO should be applied consistently however, should likely be further sub categorized to accommodate the varying system architectures and uses. 38. ISED has not indicated whether the proposed 30 satellites are inclusive or exclusive of nonoperational 14 and/or backup satellites. 39. With regards to the implementation milestones and the leniency given on deployment timeline, Kepler agrees with the proposed 30 satellite limit. For clarity, the application of the term large NGSO to other notes discussed here within should be further refined. H. Coordination disputes 40. Kepler believes that similarly to the FCC requirement and discussed in the NPR, ISED should require licensed operators to post ephemeris data publicly for anyone to access. Such a requirement would assist in ongoing coordination. Kepler has noted in its comment on the NPR that it intends to provide its data in JSON 15 format and allow for webhooks Given the technology that Kepler is introducing into its satellites 17, spectrum sharing is the most suitable and unbiased method to facilitate a large number of NGSOs operating in unison. Such a requirement would effectively eliminate spectrum hording by existing operators and 14 Satellites that have reached their end of life and are waiting for deorbit 15 JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format. It is easy for humans to read and write. It is easy for machines to parse and generate. It is based on a subset of the JavaScript Programming Language, Standard ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December JSON is a text format that is completely language independent but uses conventions that are familiar to programmers of the C-family of languages, including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, Python, and many others. These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange language., See 16 A webhook in web development is a method of augmenting or altering the behavior of a web page, or web application, with custom callbacks. These callbacks may be maintained, modified, and managed by third-party users and developers who may not necessarily be affiliated with the originating website or application. See 17 A software defined radio and antenna arrays 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 9 of 13

10 force them to implement the latest technology available to facilitate sharing and efficient use of spectrum. 42. ISED must carefully consider how it intends to license systems that claim they require entire bands of spectrum and are not able to share spectrum. Kepler proposes that such systems trail novel system with regards to spectrum priority, regardless of filing date. Anything other than prioritizing operators with technology capable of facilitating coordination amongst other operators would result in satellite systems deliberately using dated technology to amass more spectrum and avoid the burden of sharing and/or coordination. While the use of dated technology may provide for a marginal reduction in cost, it does not compensate for the economic loss to Canadian Public in the long term. Where an inline event arises between a system capable of spectrum sharing and one that is not, Kepler proposes that the system not capable of sharing be required to cease emissions. 43. Caution must be exercised when mandating spectrum sharing between new and existing systems capable of splitting bands. Where an incumbent causes an inline event, an existing provider may have contractual obligations to end users requiring a given bandwidth rending sharing potentially difficult. In such an event, Kepler proposes that the existing operator maintain spectrum priority if it can demonstrate that a contractual obligation existed prior to the incumbent triggering inline events and the obligation requires the full spectrum allocation for the entire period of the inline event. 44. Given the above, ISED should consider mandating that operators maintain a spectrum buffer in their contractual obligations in order to accommodate inline events. As a simplified example, the policy could read Where an operator enters into a contract requiring the full operational bandwidth 18 of a satellite, said contract must make abundantly clear to the client that during the occurrence of inline events, the client s bandwidth may be reduced by 25% 19 to accommodate spectrum sharing. The same is true if a geographic region being served by a satellite(s) is reaching 75% capacity In the event that a system operator argues that immediate spectrum sharing is not possible, Kepler proposes to provide the existing operator with a 14 day grace period in order to enact appropriate measures to facilitate sharing. If, after 14 days the operator has not found a solution 18 This could be undermined by an operator offering 99% of the bandwidth to avoid full bandwidth and as such it may be best to derive this as function of the reduction of bandwidth during inline events subtracted from the total bandwidth available. 19 Nominal figure to be adjusted as seen appropriate 20 Either additional clients would have to have an operational waiver allowing the operator to disable service or the operator includes a clause for all contracts to reduce bandwidth proportionately or as it sees fit 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 10 of 13

11 to accommodate the request to share spectrum, the incumbent system is automatically entitled to use up to 25% 21 of the bandwidth. The incumbent must justify their request for bandwidth requested. 46. With regards to the appropriate trigger angle; this topic is discussed in the FCC s NPR and Kepler suggests that ISED follow suit with the outcome of said proceeding. Wherever possible, ISED and the FCC should look to align themselves with regards to space regulations in order to facilitate simpler coordination and effectively assist incumbents into the North American market. In short, Kepler believes that 10 degrees is excessive to trigger an inline event. 47. Given the moratorium that has been in place for over 6 months, how does ISED intend to prioritize new space licenses? Given the number of applicants seen in the US FCC processing round initiated by WorldVu for its OneWeb constellation, ISED can expect a large number of applicants that are likely to file on the first day of the moratorium being lifted. As such, the reliance on time as a measure of priority can not be relied on. Presumably ISED will revert to ITU filing status? 48. ISED has proposed to use third-party dispute resolution as a method of reducing the burden of facilitating coordination. While Kepler believes dispute resolution by a third party is appropriate, existing operators with abundant resources may use this as a method to stall and financially burden incumbent operators. In order to facilitate a controlled environment and prevent the use of coordination as a disruptive force, Kepler suggest ISED place a cap on the cost associated with arbitration. As Kepler has not been through such a process it is unable to comment on what would be deemed an appropriate cost, time or protocol. ISED must ensure that such a procedure is not used to financially 22 burden smaller operators. I. Foreign Licensed systems 49. Kepler agrees with ISED s proposal to allow foreign-licensed NGSO systems to operate within Canada, provided they have coordinated on a national level. Imposing the burden of international coordination before being able to operate over already coordinated countries is excessive and not conducive to the adoption of new technology. It could also prohibit a system from operating if it is purposefully being stalled for competitive and/or other reason by a foreign administration. For clarity ISED must still ensure that the proposed systems have the 21 Nominal figure. Alternatively, the percent granted could be a function of time. Assuming a dispute takes up to 72 days on average (written/oral CPC ), the formula could be presented as: Incumbent allocated bandwidth = ( T / 72 ) * S where T is the time since the request to share spectrum was initiated and S the percentage of spectrum requested. Note, T should have a grace period to allow existing operators to respond to requests. 22 Note that the financial burden would also relate to the time invested by operators 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 11 of 13

12 relevant ITU filings in place and are following procedure to ensure said systems are meeting international regulatory requirements. J. Revoked licenses 50. Kepler agrees with the proposition to prohibit immediate re-assignment of spectrum and licenses. Such a procedure is an abuse of the framework and does not act in the best interest of the Canadian Public. 51. ISED has indicated that it intends to withhold the returned spectrum for 30 days prior to allowing further applications. Kepler believes this is adequate time for incumbents to be informed and act on the notice. 52. As noted above, Kepler disagrees with notion of limiting licenses. Regardless, if ISED intends to maintain a limit on licenses and withhold applications for 30 days at the time of return, it should provide a signup form allowing incumbents to be notified of newly available spectrum. In effect, this would provide operators that previously failed to receive a spectrum license an automated notification that new spectrum is available for application. Conclusion Kepler commends ISED for opening this consultation on NGSO and making it a public process. The subjects and proposed alterations align well with the changing requirements and expansion seen in the NGSO market. While the changes require further refinement to target the varying types of system architectures, Kepler is aligned with ISED s apparent underlying principles. Kepler would like to once again reiterate the importance and value that it sees in ISED aligning its regulations with those seen in the US and specifically the outcome of FCC NPR. The capitalisation of space is at a turning point in history. Canadian regulators have the choice of stalling investment or becoming an economic leader in the development and operation of satellite networks. At present, Canada does not rank within the top 10 countries for nanosat deployments and in order to achieve the latter, along with the economic gains attributed to such development, it must work with its neighbours to the south and tailor its regulations to accommodate international systems. Canada is one of a select few countries to have the geographical and political capability to foster and benefit from the new space industry, and it goes without saying that ISED should make every effort to accommodate its expansion. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 12 of 13

13 Respectfully submitted, Kepler Communications Inc. - March 10, 2017 By: /s/ Nickolas G. Spina Nickolas G. Spina Manager of Launch and Regulatory Affairs Kepler Communications Inc. 10 March 2017 Kepler Communications Inc. 13 of 13